This is something I've always wondered about, and have been questioned by others wanting to know the how and why. When Siddhartha left his wife and child, was this an act of selfishness, or compassion? Did he know, when he left them, that he would succeed at his goal?

And another question: does this give people an excuse to leave their families behind, say, in order to join a monastery?

"If you want to travel the Way of Buddhas and Zen masters, then expect nothing, seek nothing, and grasp nothing." -Dogen

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

How about the countless Filipino who leave their family to go to work overseas, are they being selfish?

I think the idea of what Buddha did as "selfish" comes from the idea that a religious life is for personal gain. This idea has become more prevalent due to our materialistic lifestyle these days, (and maybe even from Abrahamic religions where one has a "personal" relationship to god.)

Such a shame that these days "helping others" is only considered material rather than spiritual.

...and according to the tradition, Yasodhara became a Bhikkhuni (nun) in the Sangha among the first women that Buddha ordained, and Rahula became a monk in the Sangha; he was the first Samanera as a boy. Both Ven. Yasodhara and Ven. Rahula are recognized in the Pali Canon as arahants. So, the Buddha left his family to follow the path he intended to set for himself, but there really can be no sense that his act was selfish or reckless.

All good answers, and some of them are things I had never thought about before. Especially in the west, we might look at that story, and have all kinds of misperceptions of the Buddha, and tend to think low of him for doing so. But what if he had not done what he did? We wouldn't have the path to follow out of samsara.

"If you want to travel the Way of Buddhas and Zen masters, then expect nothing, seek nothing, and grasp nothing." -Dogen

Yeah..I think Indrajalas point is well worth paying attention to. Today we hear about someone leaving their family and think it means a certain thing, but at this time in India, and through much of history obviously, it was completely normal for certain classes of aristocrats and warriors to be gone a large portion of the time, so it seems like what actually happened was simply a choice between being gone to achieve worldly gains, or being gone for spiritual purposes - rather than a choice between being with family or pursuing enlightenment as is sometimes presented.

Anyway, I think if one accepts multiple turnings of the wheel, you have to accept somewhat the the original teachings required renouncing society. Since this time, there are many teachers throughout the vehicles who are householders, there are practices mentioned in the Pali Canon onward for householders, and householders achieving enlightenment. Don't have to ordain or leave ones circumstances to practice Dharma. Of course its wonderful when people do, and I understand the importance of it. The thing is, as it's said in Dhammapada and so many other places, society goes one way, Nirvana another, if there's anything in the story of the Buddha leaving his home that I take away, it's this.

"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”

You need to ask that question in this context: If your marriage had been arranged for you when you were a child, and if you left behind your wife & kids in a palace with servants...

We can't just say. "Siddhartha left his family, so that means I can" without considering a lot of factors....

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:This is something I've always wondered about, and have been questioned by others wanting to know the how and why. When Siddhartha left his wife and child, was this an act of selfishness, or compassion? Did he know, when he left them, that he would succeed at his goal?

And another question: does this give people an excuse to leave their families behind, say, in order to join a monastery?

The Buddha himself was questioned about this. According to one tradition, at least, his answer lies at the heart of the Vessantara Jataka, a little verse:

“Both Jāli and Kaṇhājinā I let another take, And Maddī my devoted wife, and all for wisdom's sake. “Not hateful is my faithful wife, nor yet my children are, But perfect knowledge, to my mind, is something dearer far.”

It would have been slow and difficult and maybe even impossible to follow the spiritual life as a Prince. The duties and cares of the world are in most of our lives. The extent to which we integrate or make a clean break is not the same decision for the ordinary person (Siddhartha) and the enlightened . . .

dyanaprajna2011 wrote:This is something I've always wondered about, and have been questioned by others wanting to know the how and why. When Siddhartha left his wife and child, was this an act of selfishness, or compassion? Did he know, when he left them, that he would succeed at his goal?

And another question: does this give people an excuse to leave their families behind, say, in order to join a monastery?

This is a much more complicated question than it seems at first. There is namely an other tradition according to which Siddhartha left home at the age of 19. This view is preserved in the Mahayana of China and Japan. The Venerable Hsuan Hua has told this version of Siddhartha's life in His Commentary to the White Lotus Sutra. In this tradition Siddhartha was already an ascetic when his parents demanded an heir to their family lineage, the ascetic Siddhartha then caused the pregnancy of Yashodhara by pointing his ascetic's staff toward the womb of Yashodhara.

The correct name of the commentary by Ven. Hsuan Hua is Wonderful Dharma Lotus Flower Sutra. This story of ascetic Siddhartha is in some of the early volumes, in the volumes that were printed in 1970's and early 1980's, which means the six or seven first ones of the series.http://www.cttbusa.org/dfs/dfs_contents.asp#

No, I don't think it was selfish.He did disobey his father and abandoned his wife and child. He also walked away from his responsibility as crown prince and heir to the throne. But it's not like they would starve without him being around to support them, and a new heir had already been born.He had been prophesied to be a great king and a great leader in the secular world if he didn't enter the religious life, so he had a great career ahead had he chosen it.He was willing to die rather than abandon his search, so it's hard to argue he was in it for himself. I don't think he knew, either. I think he manifest himself as an unenlightened human being, but his nature was that of a Buddha. Before his awakening (I think) he didn't know all of his past lives, or that he was a Buddha, but his nature was such that the suffering of human beings and other life forms so bothered him that he felt an implacable desire to know the truth.

Considering he named his son the (endearing?) name 'Rahula'-Eclipse/Fetter probably gives some insight into what was going on for him personally at the time...

He left in the night...but didn't cut himself off from his family completely. I think we also get into a tendency of projecting current ideas of relationships and family into a different time and cultural climate.

As another forum member pointed out- his wife and son eventually became renunciates as well. He travelled in areas where many of his kinsmen and relatives where. His family was taken care of- no support rug pulled from under them. I don't know much about Indian family arrangements at that point in history...but...if it was political/arranged marriages and if he had a harem... there were probably different emotional expectations between a husband and wife than we have now. I think it is problematic to apply current expectations in relationships onto historical relationships. I also imagine it was not too shocking that a person might leave a family or career and become a renunciate. There was a strong culture of it already. Even Yasodhara allegedly emulated Buddha shortly after he left home and she refused other marriage proposals. Also important to consider they had already been married for about 15 years or something. They married as child-cousins.

Even now as a monastic a person has to clean up their ties with the world- taking care of debts, having no dependents or making sure they are taken care of and it is at an appropriate time, having no major illness, etc. They don't abandon their relatives and act like strangers and they do help them in whatever capacity they can. Leaving home isn't intended to be a hurtful or cold act thrown in the face of one's family. Much better if they give their approval and rejoice in it.

I don't think the Buddha was implying that every person leave their family in the night and run off to quest for the answers to suffering and the meaning to life. I think he did that so we don't have to. Now half the work is done for us and we can enter into that path and avoid the dead ends he found.

coldwater wrote:Considering he named his son the (endearing?) name 'Rahula'-Eclipse/Fetter probably gives some insight into what was going on for him personally at the time...

The name "rahula" does not mean "fetter". This explanation, which is very popular, only seems to appear in Buddhaghosa's work from the 5th century CE. The term is "bandha" (fetter). However, the passage itself hints as much at "bandhu", which just means "kinsman". This could also just be read as saying he has a son and declares "a relative is born", then names him "rahula". The literature is a popular story. It should not at all be used to give some historical description of what the Buddha was feeling at the time.

Thank you, I didn't know that. Could you elaborate more?What does Rahula mean, if not fetter? What is implied in the name? Or is there no meaning? Or are you saying the meaning was wrongly attached and emphasized from the 5th century onward?

As far as I know naming was (and is) quite important in Indian culture. It has appeared to me that the meaning of names of characters throughout his hagiography, as well as sutras, generally suggested characteristics, relationships, virtues or personal histories. If from the 5th century onward the biographies have been confused and altered by a misreading of a term- that changes the story around his family relationship quite a bit. If Rahula means 'eclipse' or is suggestive of a fetter or blockage, that to me, is obviously suggesting certain sentiments to be conveyed by the storyteller to the reader.

Also I don't consider the story historical or factual, I consider it a story. I have doubts about much of the biography as being historically accurate and we can only reconstruct something so much. Sorry if it seemed like I was saying "this is what the Buddha really thought", for me it is a given that this is a hagiography meant to convey a kind of life arc. Important for followers and that has been altered by time and preferences of people. So misinterpretations or misreadings isn't surprising but I would like to know the actual meaning of Rahula and the sort of implications it has.